June 12, 2009

6/12: The AMA Vs. The Netroots

Liberal bloggers spent much of yesterday criticizing the American Medical Association after it announced its opposition to the creation of a government-sponsored health insurance plan. Even though lefty bloggers weren't surprised by the announcement (considering the AMA's long history of opposing public plans), they were still annoyed by it. digby dismissed the AMA as "mostly a bunch of rich conservatives" while Matthew Yglesias accused the organization of being compromised by its associations with the pharmaceutical lobby. The APA later tried to soften its stance by releasing a follow-up statement declaring its willingness to "consider other variations of the public plan," but the netroots were not appeased. It's clear that many progressives believe that a strong public option is essential for health reform to succeed, and they're not particularly impressed by the proposed alternatives floating around Congress.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (McCarter, Reich) don't view Senate Budget Cmte Chair Kent Conrad's (D-ND) co-op model for healthcare reform as an acceptable substitute for a strong public plan. Meanwhile, Chris Bowers praised Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for declaring that a health care bill that didn't include a public option wouldn't make it through the House because it "wouldn't have the votes."
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Morrissey, Reynolds, Gateway Pundit) are accusing Pres. Obama of engaging in "cronyism" now that he has fired the inspector general who investigates AmeriCorps and other national service programs.
• Conservative bloggers (Painter, Wolf, Hinderaker) are arguing that James von Brunn, the accused Holocaust Museum shooter, is closer to the left side of the political spectrum than he is to the right. Liberal bloggers (Blue Texan, Marshall, Roth) are arguing the opposite. Philip Klein is tired of the whole debate.
• Liberal bloggers (Clawson, Senate Guru) expect the VA GOV race to be very close, but they're excited about the new Rasmussen poll showing state Sen. Creigh Deeds (D) leading ex-AG Bob McDonnell (R) 47-41%.

AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION: Standing Up For The Profits Rights Of Doctors

Liberal bloggers spent much of yesterday criticizing the American Medical Association after it announced its opposition to the creation of a government-sponsored insurance plan:

• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "It was only a matter of time before the American Medical Assocation put its well heeled foot down and put a stop to this nonsense talk about creating a public insurance option to compete against its partner in profits, America's lucrative private insurance system."
• digby: "So the AMA came out in opposition to a public plan. Anyone who is surprised by that hasn't been paying attention. They were always going to fight any effort to control costs because one of the main costs is them. (The AMA has always been mostly a bunch of rich conservatives. There are other, newer physician groups who are far less reflexively ideological.)"
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "[T]he AMA's track record is consistent -- which is to say, consistently awful -- on reform efforts. [...] It was the AMA that helped block Franklin Roosevelt's administration from including health care reform in the Social Security package. It was the AMA that undermined [Harry] Truman's reform effort. It was the AMA that blasted Medicare as a step towards totalitarianism. It was the AMA that came up with 'socialized medicine' as a catch-all attack to describe any government intervention in the health care system. And now the group is outraged by the notion of a public option? You don't say."
• The Washington Post's Ezra Klein: "[O]f course the American Medical Association is opposed to the public plan. It has opposed all public plans proposed by all presidents in all contexts. [...] And the group is not necessarily wrong to do so. The AMA represents the interests -- which it tends to define as the profits -- of doctors. [...] But I think it would be useful for folks to ask themselves whether they really think America would be better off without Medicare and Medicaid and if they really think that the point of health reform should be to protect the profit margins of the medical industry. The AMA has one set of interests to protect, and taxpayers have another. And sometimes, the two will diverge."

Think Progress' Yglesias argues that the AMA is compromised by its associations with the pharmaceutical lobby: "[O]ver the course of at least a century the AMA has found that it can't rely on membership dues to generate the kind of revenue that the AMA leadership is looking for. Instead, they've turned to corporate sponsorship -- businesses with money to make by casting a veneer of medical respectability around their pursuit of profit find a relationship with the AMA to be useful. [...T]he pharmaceutical lobby...provides at least 20 percent of the AMA's budget. And PhRMA is in the midst of a multimillion dollar advocacy campaign against many progressive health reform ideas."

AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION II: We Didn't Intend For It To Sound That Way...

A few hours after the New York Times article about the AMA was published, the organization tried to soften its stance by releasing a follow-up statement:

"Today's New York Times story creates a false impression about the AMA's position on a public plan option in health care reform legislation. The AMA opposes any public plan that forces physicians to participate, expands the fiscally-challenged Medicare program or pays Medicare rates, but the AMA is willing to consider other variations of the public plan that are currently under discussion in Congress. This includes a federally chartered co-op health plan or a level playing field option for all plans. The AMA is working to achieve meaningful health reform this year and is ready to stand behind legislation that includes coverage options that work for patients and physicians."

Liberal bloggers were not impressed by the AMA's statement:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Is this a real reversal on their part? I'm not holding my breath that they'll do anything but obstruct. [...] Thankfully, not all physicians are on board with the AMA, either individually (as doctoraaron testifies) or in their trade associations. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, the National Physician Alliance, and the Community of Interns and Residents/SEIU Healthcare are all part of the HCAN coalition."
• Scarecrow: "After announcing its adamant opposition to any public health insurance option and encountering a storm of criticism and resignations, the American Medical Association has turned half way around in hours. [...] So in less than a day, they've moved from 'no, never' to 'well, maybe' provided they're not forced to treat patients! . . . and the public plan is available on a 'level playing field.' To the industry, that means, 'hobble it' so it can't really offer the natural advantages of a robust public plan."

Klein sees the APA's "backtrack" as evidence that Dems are playing "hardball" on healthcare reform.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: What The Iranian Election Means

Marc Lynch (h/t Kevin Drum):

"The Iranian election has already captivated the Arab public sphere -- it has been all over the headlines and the TV stations. I imagine that many of the Arabs who see democracy as an important and positive issue find this Iranian election inspiring (as they did [Mohammad] Khatemi's 1997 campaign). The Arab public may regard a [Mir-Hossein] Mousavi victory as the same kind of opportunity to rethink relations with Iran as Obama's victory offered for relations with the United States. Arab leaders may find it harder to mobilize opposition to Iran with the seemingly reasonable Mousavi in office than with the cheerfully inflammatory [Mahmoud] Ahmedenejad.

[...] Of course, if Ahmedenejad wins, the reverse effect may take hold. When George W. Bush defeated John Kerry in 2004, a very wide swathe of Arab public opinion concluded that this meant that the American people really did bear responsibility for Bush's unpopular policies. If the U.S. is really a democracy, they asked, then didn't Bush's victory mean that his war on terror and invasion of Iraq really did represent the American popular will? If Ahmedenejad wins, the same dynamic may hit Iran in the Arab world: the Iranian people had the chance to correct their policies, and chose to continue as they were. That might lead to a hardening and deepening of anti-Iranian sentiment, at least among elites and leaders."

LEST WE FORGET: Aesop's Wife's Fables

McSweeney's contributor Doug Lieblich:

• The Ant and the Grasshopper Who Forgot Their Anniversary
• The Boy Who Cried Wolf But Still Can't Communicate His Feelings
• The Mouse and the Lion Who Always Wants Sex Even When She Has A Headache
• The Cat That Should Have Married The Athenian Senator When She Had the Chance
• The Bear Who Went To Go Drinking With His Friends Even Though He Just Went Out With Them Last Night
• The Hen and the Fat, Lazy, Selfish Ass
• The Peacock and the Increasingly Enticing Pool Boy
• The Dog, the Eagle, and the Refusal to Have a Baby
• The Tortoise and the Alimony

Posted by Ian Faerstein at June 12, 2009 12:48 PM